Generals confront Obama on NDAA : Bin Ladin has won

Generals confront Obama's NDAA, say it's a 'victory for bin Laden'

NDAA would 'expand the battlefield to include United States and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise'

In last moment opposition to the nation's leaders' greatest assault on basic huan rights, the National Defense Authorization bill that President Barack Obama insisted include Americans on U.S. soil for military arrest without charge and indefinite detention, retired military leaders Tuesday resorted to publicly confronting the president in the New York Times in their continued speaking out against provisions in the bill as released Monday night from the congressional conference committee.

"In his inaugural address, President Obama called on us to 'reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.' We agree," stated the retired military leaders in their New York Times piece Tuesday.

Retired four-star Marine generals Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar have warned against provisions in the bill that would serious impact U.S. counterterrorism policy in today’s New York Times.

Congresspersons undermine American ideals in the name of 'terrorism'

Well no kidding... Al-Qaeda IS the government. Those generals should team up, take some troops and put the whole federal government under arrest.

They have committed treason time and time again after all. It's time for them to go.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Obama needs to be impeached for what he is doing to the American people.

reply to post by Unvarnished


You realize he is going to veto it.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
reply to post by Unvarnished

 

You realize he is going to veto it.

dude, not only is he not going to veto it but he didn't veto it.

i can't believe i voted for obama. he is a liar.

Originally posted by godWhisperer

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
reply to post by Unvarnished

 

You realize he is going to veto it.

dude, not only is he not going to veto it but he didn't veto it.

i can't believe i voted for obama. he is a liar.

Beat me to it.

Despite the fact that I didn't vote for Obama (nor McCain) I can't say I take any solace in this fact. This is a travesty, and unfortunately, I'm already considering drastic measures. This is as about as anti-American as you can get. Face it, folks, Obama is garbage. Just about every politician is.

Can someone please quote the specific text that allows for indefinite detention of American citizens? I'm looking at the revised bill that passed and I all I see is language that excludes Americans citizens.

From H.R. 1450, section 1032:

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND
18 LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
19 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement
20 to detain a person in military custody under this sec-
21 tion does not extend to citizens of the United States.
22 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require-
23 ment to detain a person in military custody under
24 this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien
25 of the United States on the basis of conduct taking 422
† HR 1540 PP
1 place within the United States, except to the extent
2 permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

And this, also from H.R. 1450, found in section 1031:

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
20 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
21 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
22 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
23 captured or arrested in the United States.

Also there is this provision that, if I am reading correctly, will make sure that a system of checks and balances will be in place, making sure that the executive branch doesn't act unilaterally:

(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
25 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress re-420
† HR 1540 PP
1 garding the application of the authority described in this
2 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-
3 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of sub-
4 section (b)(2).

This is what I found looking through the bill. Unless someone provides text from the bill that proves this is an evil bill, I think that the only people who should be scared of it are terrorists.

I followed this bill with extreme concern. I contacted congressman in several states and participated in an all out fight to keep this from being passed. Obama lied to everyone yet again when he claimed he would veto it. He never truly intended to and they made the statement earlier today that they in fact would not veto it. (as mentioned previously in this thread)

The Senate will now receive it, and then it will proceed to Obama, where he will in fact sign this into law. Judge Andrew Napolitano has been posting continuously on his facebook today about this. Congressman Justin Amash and Ron Paul have been talking about it with a great deal of concern, anger and disappointment in their colleagues.

The thing to do now is to contact your Senators. The minute your feet touch the floor in the morning, grab your phone and make those calls. Tell your friends, your neighbors, complete strangers. This concerns ALL American citizens.

Contact Your Senators ASAP!!!!!

Congressman Justin Amash's NDAA Fact Sheet

Flag this thread like crazy or repost the information on another thread if a 'main' thread exists. We have to spread this out and fight this tyrannical bill!

reply to post by Throwback

The second provision (section 1032), however, does not include an exemption for U.S. citizens, and would give the government “the legal authority to keep people suspected of terrorism in military custody, indefinitely and without trial.”

here

reply to post by Throwback


No exaggeration, this is probably the 100th time that I explain this. IT APPLIES TO AMERICAN CITIZENS. The language is MADE so it's deceptive.

The requirement
20 to detain a person in military custody under this sec-
21 tion does not extend to citizens of the United States.

That means that every time people are arrested for ``terrorism``, they are not REQUIRED to be put in a military jail, but they CAN be.

Nothing in this section shall be
20 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
21 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
22 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
23 captured or arrested in the United States.

That's because they already have the authority with the military commission acts.

Everyone is saying this is bad bill. Congressmen, senators, lawyers, rights activists, etc...

THIS IS NOT A GOOD BILL.

reply to post by Throwback

The text is in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. The President has had this power for over ten years, it's been tested by the Supreme Court, it's Constitutional. The FY 2012 NDAA does not expand that power. It does not suspend habeas corpus. It does not establish martial law. There is no news here--except perhaps that the bill requires the administration to brief Congress on how it determines who is a covered person, something the administration has, to date, kept secret.

reply to post by godWhisperer

i can't believe i voted for obama. he is a liar.

This is a joke right ? No one can be this naive.

How can you tell if Obamas lying about something ?

His lips are moving..

reply to post by Vitchilo


You are right on the money.

Now people will say, "Well if someone is involved in "terrorism" they deserve it". It is sad how some will justify a need for such a thing. The worst part is people hear the word "terrorism" and think crashing planes into buildings, or bombing buildings. I strongly suggest people find out for themselves exactly what the legal definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist" actually is as defined by the Government.

I will give you a hint.... you are a terrorist!

reply to post by randyvs


you're right, i shouldn't be surprised anymore. but it is still very striking to see such blatant disregard for the quality of his own words. these people don't even care anymore- they will tell you whatever will make it easiest for them to achieve what they really want.

reply to post by godWhisperer


If you read the bill, there clearly is an exemption for Americans.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by Throwback

No exaggeration, this is probably the 100th time that I explain this. IT APPLIES TO AMERICAN CITIZENS. The language is MADE so it's deceptive.

The requirement
20 to detain a person in military custody under this sec-
21 tion does not extend to citizens of the United States.

That means that every time people are arrested for ``terrorism``, they are not REQUIRED to be put in a military jail, but they CAN be.

This means exactly what it says it means. The requirement they are talking about is not being put in military jail. The requirement they are talking about is:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para-
9 graph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States
10 shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who
11 is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
12 the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public
13 Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
14 under the law of war.

This requirement is further detailed in section 1031 C:

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposi-
2 tion of a person under the law of war as described in sub-
3 section (a) may include the following:
4 (1) Detention under the law of war without trial
5 until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Au-
6 thorization for Use of Military Force.
7 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
8 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis-
9 sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–
10 84)).
11 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
12 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
13 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the per-
14 son’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or
15 any other foreign entity

I think it is pretty well stated what WILL happen. There are no cans, ifs, buts, ors, etc. in the language.

Nothing in this section shall be
20 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
21 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
22 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
23 captured or arrested in the United States.

That's because they already have the authority with the military commission acts.

Everyone is saying this is bad bill. Congressmen, senators, lawyers, rights activists, etc...

THIS IS NOT A GOOD BILL.

Americans are protected from indefinite detention. It doesn't matter what acts were passed. Enemy combatants are not. Even the Supreme Court has ruled that Americans cannot be detained indefinitely. Here is the Supreme Court ruling. That case, in fact, deals with those military commission acts.

I don't understand the fuss over this. I suspect these provisions were added so that the assasination of Anwar al-Awlaki would be legal-- not for a NWO martial law plot.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


What Supreme Court ruling? In this Supreme Court ruling basically protected Americans by giving them a chance to fight their detainment.

As of now it hasn't been signed or vetoed!

Originally posted by Throwback
reply to post by godWhisperer

 

If you read the bill, there clearly is an exemption for Americans.

i checked out your link and i see what you are saying.
i tried to do some more poking around and i found this from Senate bill sponsor Carl Levin:

Moreover, Senate bill sponsor Carl Levin said administration officials, in fact, lobbied against language excluding US citizens from indefinite military detentions without trials or due process. According to Levin:

"The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved....and the administration asked us to remove (it) which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section."

"It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee. (W)e removed it at the request of the administration....It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language, the absence of which is now objected to."

i got that quote here but i see that quote on other sites, too.
i notice that in the link you posted the date on the bill is dec. 1, 2011. i wonder if it's just a matter of the language changing since then.
i don't know for sure but perhaps that's why we still see the exemption for americans.

bin Laden won?

no... the NeoCons won, their agenda got the Patriot acts, the DHS created, the military commissions passed. and a lot of airport gropes enacted

perhaps the 'Blue Turbin' man was never bin Laden as some suppose
instead the blue turbin man of nostradamus infamy might be the man-behind-the-scenes

way behind the scene... does the name of the Israel Moses Seif family for which Israel is named ring a bell?

reply to post by godWhisperer


Yes, this is the latest bill because this has been added to section 1031:

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
20 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
21 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
22 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
23 captured or arrested in the United States.

Why Congress opted to put this in instead of Mr. Levin's version, I have no idea. I guess some people would like to see it explicitly stated instead of putting "check older laws to see if this protects Americans". I would have.